Now let's whip into shape a user review of another film that floats around the top of my eternal-favorite list, Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Because when a re-view comes along, you must whip it:
In the summer of 1969, when I was all of ten years old, Mom & Dad bundled all us kids into the white Oldsmobile stationwagon and drove to the Rockville (Maryland) Drive-In to see "2001: A Space Odyssey." I didn't know much about the film, but as a budding sci-fi fan I was already champing at the bit to see it. Needless to say, "2001" rearranged my universe. I can't say I understood the movie completely at the time, but I do recall talking my parents' ears off about the film during the drive home.
"2001" is personally my favorite movie of all time. I've seen it more times than I can count, purchased the soundtrack several times (vinyl and tape wear out, you know), read Arthur C. Clarke's novelization several times, and read every other piece of literature about the film I've been able to get my hands on.
And recently my partner Greg purchased this "Stanley Kubrick Collection" DVD from Amazon, and it was just last night that we sat down to watch it on our new 32-inch TV and in 5.1 digital sound. What a treat! First of all the print is about as pristine as anything I've ever seen; this movie probably looks better today on DVD than it did in many suburban movie theatres back in 1969. I was immediately struck by how sharp the image was, especially the clean lines of the monolith that appears mysteriously amongst our australopithicine ancestors 4.5 million years ago. While watching this film last night, Greg lamented the fact that kids today who grow up on nothing but CGI effects in science fiction movies may never have a true appreciation for the fine art of model-building; the Orion shuttle, the Discovery ship and its attendant space pods, are stunning examples of elegance in design. The Aries 1-B moon shuttle looks like it ought to have been built and flying by now. The docking sequence with the rotating space station, to the oddly appropriate strains of "The Blue Danube Waltz," look just as clean and modern as anything being filmed today.
The pop cultural impact of "2001" cannot me overstated. Is it any wonder that over 30 years after the film's initial release, Richard Strauss' tone poem "Also Sprauch Zarathustra" is still associated with space travel?
That having been said, my only qualm with this edition is that the sound editors involved with the DVD transfer may have taken a few too many liberties. The most glaring example is during the closing credits of the film: In the original print the "Blue Danube" reprise ends with snare drum roll and finish when we see the words "THE END." ... But in this edition the waltz continues merrily on its way long after the screen fades to black. Amazon's website notes that Stanley Kubrick approved all this audio tweaking; I guess I'm just going to have to take their word for it. Granted, the sound is very nice and crisp, the conversations are clear, the bass has a lot of extra "oomph" during Gyorgy Ligeti's atmospheric score. If you are not too much of a Kubrick purist and can overlook the tweaking of the sound, you'll have to admit that this edition of "2001" sounds damned good.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" was released at a time when there was still a huge sense of wonder and optimism about space travel and exploration. Alas, in the intervening years shifting economic, political and military priorities have eroded much of that wonder and optimism. I wonder if any of us will ever again be able to look up at the stars with as much hope and exhilaration as we had when "2001" first hit the screens.
Sound foundation, clunky expression. The writer has clearly done his thinking about the film, but his review has a dashed-off feel that does the thoughts injustice.
Opening with a personal anecdote, let alone one headed by season and year, runs the risk of making writers sound like windbags right out of the gate. (It ranks just barely above quoting Webster's.) In this case, though, I do think it's an appropriate way to get this writer's lifelong love of 2001 across:
In the summer of 1969, when I was all of ten years old, Mom & Dad bundled all us kids into the white Oldsmobile stationwagon and drove to the Rockville (Maryland) Drive-In to see "2001: A Space Odyssey." I didn't know much about the film, but as a budding sci-fi fan I was already champing at the bit to see it.
Like stray grains of sand that slow every gear in a machine, insertions like "all of" and "all us" kill rhythm, momentum and suchlike. Let's strip 'em out as we correct the various, more mundane "stationwagon"s and "champing"s. Take note also of the switcheroo pulled on the second sentence; I submit that the writer's budding sci-fi fandom leads more strongly than his lack of 2001-specific knowledge:
In the summer of 1969, when I was ten years old, Mom and Dad bundled us kids into the white Oldsmobile station wagon and drove to the Rockville, Maryland Drive-In to see "2001: A Space Odyssey". As a budding sci-fi fan, I was chomping at the bit to see the film despite knowing little about it.
Now witness the writer's life forever and irrevocably altered:
Needless to say, "2001" rearranged my universe. I can't say I understood the movie completely at the time, but I do recall talking my parents' ears off about the film during the drive home.
People disagree about "needless to say." Some consider is a useful piece of rhetorical subtlety; others believe that it is or indicates something that, uh, doesn't need saying. As it emphasizes the picture's impact — it rearranged this guy's universe, but hey, whose didn't it rearrange? — I elect to leave it in. Your mileage may vary. Starting a sentence with "needless to say," in some readers' eyes, merits even more serious punishment, but in this context I see no other way.
As we've established that this is a memory and thus an event in the past, we can trust the reader to get by without "at the time" and the folksy "I do recall":
Needless to say, it rearranged my universe. I can't say I understood the movie completely, but I did talk my parents' ears off about it on the drive home.
The obsession grows:
"2001" is personally my favorite movie of all time. I've seen it more times than I can count, purchased the soundtrack several times (vinyl and tape wear out, you know), read Arthur C. Clarke's novelization several times, and read every other piece of literature about the film I've been able to get my hands on.
Trust Thine Reader. Let's make that this post's mantra. Have faith that readers will understand that 2001 is personally your favorite movie of all time even if you write that 2001 is only your favorite movie of all time. (Or even just that it's your favorite movie, period.) When judging whether or not to include a word, especially an adjective or adverb, consider whether you really must distinguish your statement from the version using that word's opposite. How much should the writer worry about making sure the reader understands he doesn't mean that 2001 is impersonally his favorite movie of all time?
The last bit of the ungainly second sentence needs the most help, specifically in the form of a stronger conceptual link between Clarke's novel and "every other piece of literature" about the film (and for the record, I believe the book, crafted concurrently with the movie, is less a novelization than the missing link between novelization and adaptation):
"2001" is my favorite movie of all time. I've seen more screenings than I can count, purchased the soundtrack more than once — vinyl and tape wear out, you know — and read Arthur C. Clarke's novel several times, as well as every other piece of related literature I've been able to get my hands on.
Flash forward:
And recently my partner Greg purchased this "Stanley Kubrick Collection" DVD from Amazon, and it was just last night that we sat down to watch it on our new 32-inch TV and in 5.1 digital sound. What a treat!
I overuse "recently" myself and thus am hypersensitive to its overuse by others. Here, as almost everywhere, it serves no substantive function. The point is that they watched this 2001 DVD; the facts that Greg recently purchased it or that they watched it the night before the review's composition — let alone "just" the night before, or that they "sat down" to watch it rather than stand up — have relatively little relevance. Let's clarify it:
Last night my partner Greg and I watched this "Stanley Kubrick Collection" DVD he purchased on our new 32-inch TV in 5.1 digital sound. What a treat!
And lo, Kubrick's masterpiece blows the writer's mind once again, this time with its edge definition:
First of all the print is about as pristine as anything I've ever seen; this movie probably looks better today on DVD than it did in many suburban movie theatres back in 1969. I was immediately struck by how sharp the image was, especially the clean lines of the monolith that appears mysteriously amongst our australopithicine ancestors 4.5 million years ago.
A print being "about as pristine" as anything the writer has ever seen likely falls on the "reader doesn't care" of the great "reader cares"/"reader doesn't care" divide. Too equivocal. But if it's simply as pristine? Just interesting enough. And since the writer's childhood memory already indicated 1969 as the year of 2001's theatrical run, we don't need it mentioned again.
The sluggish "I was immediately struck by how sharp the image was" becomes, when put through the de-passive-voiceifier, the beginning of a statement about what the sharpness of the image did (strong!) rather than about who was struck by the image which was what (weak!). The benefit is both sizable and obvious:
As pristine as any I've seen, the print probably looks better on DVD now than it did in suburban movie theatres then. The image's sharpness, especially the clean lines of the monolith that mysteriously appears amongst our australopithicine ancestors, struck me immediately.
Greg weeps for future generations, coming up as they do in our tragically aestheticized-down age:
While watching this film last night, Greg lamented the fact that kids today who grow up on nothing but CGI effects in science fiction movies may never have a true appreciation for the fine art of model-building; the Orion shuttle, the Discovery ship and its attendant space pods, are stunning examples of elegance in design.
Again with the "last night." And Trust Thine Reader: he'll remember you watched the movie even if you don't restate as much. This is about Greg's lament, so words aren't well-spent on rebuilding a background. I considered changing "elegance in design" to "design elegance," but on second thought, nah, it's fine:
Greg lamented that kids who grow up on CGI-heavy science fiction movies may never appreciate the fine art of model-building; the Orion shuttle, the Discovery ship and its attendant space pods are stunning examples of elegance in design.
More unforgettable imagery invoked:
The Aries 1-B moon shuttle looks like it ought to have been built and flying by now. The docking sequence with the rotating space station, to the oddly appropriate strains of "The Blue Danube Waltz," look just as clean and modern as anything being filmed today.
First sentence: dandy. Second: less so. It's another case of segments coming in what feels like the wrong order. And what's a statement about music doing in a string of observations about the purely visual? We won't go far as to remove the "Blue Danube" reference, but its out-of-placeness demands consideration. It's not as disruptive in this revision, though, where it comes first in its sentence:
The Aries 1-B moon shuttle looks like it ought to have been built and flying by now. Set to the oddly appropriate strains of "The Blue Danube Waltz", the rotating space station's docking sequence looks as clean and modern as anything filmed today.
An oddball short paragraph follows:
The pop cultural impact of "2001" cannot me overstated. Is it any wonder that over 30 years after the film's initial release, Richard Strauss' tone poem "Also Sprauch Zarathustra" is still associated with space travel?
Perhaps editorial opinion drives this, but "pop cultural" panders to a false divide; "cultural" will do. (And if you really want to separate the "high" and the "low," who would ever file 2001 under the latter?) A part of me says this whole chunk should be cut, but let's not do quite that much violence to the original; we'll graft it to the final paragraph instead.
The cultural impact of "2001" cannot be overstated. Is it any wonder that over 30 years after the film's release, Richard Strauss' tone poem "Also Sprauch Zarathustra" is still associated with space travel?
But back on the subject immediately at hand, the writer has to grant that the disc sounds swell:
That having been said, my only qualm with this edition is that the sound editors involved with the DVD transfer may have taken a few too many liberties.
I'm willing to get hard-and-fast on this: nobody should use the phrase "that having been said." Not as long as they're capable of writing "that said," anyway. We discussed the de-passive-voicifier; "that having been said" is what you get after running "that said" through the regular passive-voicifier. (The modern working writer could make few worse investments than purchasing a regular passive-voicifier.) And we can streamline the revision further still by turning it into a statement about his having a qualm instead of about what his qualm is:
That said, I have a qualm with the liberties taken by this edition's sound editors.
The blasphemy revealed:
The most glaring example is during the closing credits of the film: In the original print the "Blue Danube" reprise ends with snare drum roll and finish when we see the words "THE END." ... But in this edition the waltz continues merrily on its way long after the screen fades to black. Amazon's website notes that Stanley Kubrick approved all this audio tweaking; I guess I'm just going to have to take their word for it.
This passes structural muster, but the devil's in the details. (He loves him some details.) Better, as usual, to talk about the action rather than the identity or nature of this "glaring example." And again, Trust Thine Reader: they know 2001 is a film, they know it's viewed on a screen, and they know Amazon is a website. (And if at this point they don't, seek a new readership.) Also — and this is totally general — excise all excisable instances of the speed bump "going to." This should read much more smoothly:
The most glaring example comes during the closing credits: in the original print, the "Blue Danube" reprise ends with a snare drum roll and finish under the words THE END, but in this edition the waltz continues merrily on its way long after the fade to black. Amazon notes that Stanley Kubrick approved this tweaking; I guess I'll have to take their word for it.
But hey, this tweaking ain't so bad, in the scheme of things:
Granted, the sound is very nice and crisp, the conversations are clear, the bass has a lot of extra "oomph" during Gyorgy Ligeti's atmospheric score. If you are not too much of a Kubrick purist and can overlook the tweaking of the sound, you'll have to admit that this edition of "2001" sounds damned good.
"Nice" is a red flag; "very nice" is an even worse red flag. A maroon flag, if you will, indicating serious meaninglessness. "Nice" aside, I find the first sentence ill-formed in that it spends two-thirds of its time saying what a couple things are, which necessitates a near-teardown/rebuild and merging of both sentences:
But if you aren't too much of a Kubrick purist, you'll have to admit that the clarity of the conversations, the extra "oomph" in the bass of Gyorgy Ligeti's atmospheric score and the overall crispness sound damned good.
"Overall crispness" remains a flat thing to comment on, but there it is.
Finally, the writer takes a turn for the wistful:
"2001: A Space Odyssey" was released at a time when there was still a huge sense of wonder and optimism about space travel and exploration. Alas, in the intervening years shifting economic, political and military priorities have eroded much of that wonder and optimism. I wonder if any of us will ever again be able to look up at the stars with as much hope and exhilaration as we had when "2001" first hit the screens.
Not a bad ending, but certainly a leaden one in the original formulation. Luckily, we can slim it down to half its size like a slow-news People magazine cover story. Most obviously, we don't need the movie's title twice in one paragraph. Nor should we write about what there was in the late 60s and how it's changed since when we can write simply about what the ensuing decades have done to the mood that characterized that time. Performing the aforementioned transplant of that one wonky standalone little paragraph, we have a surprisingly admirable wrapup:
The cultural impact of "2001" cannot be overstated. Is it any wonder that over 30 years on, Richard Strauss' tone poem "Also Sprauch Zarathustra" remains associated with space travel? The film was released at a time of optimism and wonder about space exploration, which shifting economic, political and military priorities have, alas, eroded. I wonder if we'll ever again look up at the stars with the hope and exhilaration we had when "2001" hit the screens.
The revised 2001 review in full:
In the summer of 1969, when I was ten years old, Mom and Dad bundled us kids into the white Oldsmobile station wagon and drove to the Rockville, Maryland Drive-In to see "2001: A Space Odyssey". As a budding sci-fi fan, I was chomping at the bit to see the film despite knowing little about it. Needless to say, it rearranged my universe. I can't say I understood the movie completely, but I did talk my parents' ears off about it on the drive home.
"2001" is my favorite movie of all time. I've seen more screenings than I can count, purchased the soundtrack more than once — vinyl and tape wear out, you know — and read Arthur C. Clarke's novel several times, as well as every other piece of related literature I've been able to get my hands on. Last night my partner Greg and I watched this "Stanley Kubrick Collection" DVD he purchased on our new 32-inch TV in 5.1 digital sound. What a treat! As pristine as any I've seen, the print probably looks better on DVD now than it did in suburban movie theatres then. The image's sharpness, especially the clean lines of the monolith that mysteriously appears amongst our australopithicine ancestors, struck me immediately. Greg lamented that kids who grow up on CGI-heavy science fiction movies may never appreciate the fine art of model-building; the Orion shuttle, the Discovery ship and its attendant space pods are stunning examples of elegance in design. The Aries 1-B moon shuttle looks like it ought to have been built and flying by now. Set to the oddly appropriate strains of "The Blue Danube Waltz", the rotating space station's docking sequence looks as clean and modern as anything filmed today.
That said, I have a qualm with the liberties taken by this edition's sound editors. The most glaring example comes during the closing credits: in the original print, the "Blue Danube" reprise ends with a snare drum roll and finish under the words THE END, but in this edition the waltz continues merrily on its way long after the fade to black. Amazon notes that Stanley Kubrick approved this tweaking; I guess I'll have to take their word for it. But if you aren't too much of a Kubrick purist, you'll have to admit that the clarity of the conversations, the extra "oomph" in the bass of Gyorgy Ligeti's atmospheric score and the overall crispness sound damned good.
The cultural impact of "2001" cannot be overstated. Is it any wonder that over 30 years on, Richard Strauss' tone poem "Also Sprauch Zarathustra" remains associated with space travel? The film was released at a time of optimism and wonder about space exploration, which shifting economic, political and military priorities have, alas, eroded. I wonder if we'll ever again look up at the stars with the hope and exhilaration we had when "2001" hit the screens.
You should send along any and all 100-700-word samples of prose with which I can dick around to colinjmarshall at gmail. These should preferably not include the author's name or any source information.
Comments